1. Introduction
Over the last decade, many variants associated with classical domination parameters in graphs have been defined and studied. In particular, variants related to domination and independence in graphs have attracted the attention of many researchers.
One of the most analysed ideas, and from which many parameters have been defined, is considering dominating sets whose complements form independent sets. Some recent references about some of these remarkable variants can be observed in [
1,
2] for total outer-independent domination, in [
3,
4] for outer-independent double Roman domination, in [
5,
6,
7,
8] for outer-independent (total) Roman domination, and in [
9,
10,
11,
12] for outer-independent (total) 2-rainbow domination.
This note mainly deals with providing new results about one of the aforementioned parameters: the outer-independent 2-rainbow domination number (OI2RD number) of a graph. Given a graph G, we say that a function is an outer-independent 2-rainbow dominating function (OI2RD function) on G if the following two conditions hold.
- (i)
is an independent set of G.
- (ii)
for every vertex .
Let for . We will identify an OI2RD function f with the subsets , , , and of associated with it, and so we will use the unified notation for the function and these associated subsets. The OI2RD number of G, denoted by , is the minimum weight among all OI2RD functions f on G. A -function is an OI2RD function with weight .
As previously mentioned, this parameter has been studied by different researchers. For instance, in [
9,
10] interesting tight bounds were obtained for general graphs and for the particular case of trees. Moreover, in [
9] graphs with small and large OI2RD numbers were characterized. Finally, in [
11] the authors studied the OI2RD number for the Cartesian products of paths and cycles.
The note is organised as follows. In
Section 2, we provide new tight bounds which improve the well-known bounds
given in [
9], where
denotes the vertex cover number of
G. Finally, in
Section 3 we provide closed formulas for this parameter in the join, lexicographic, and corona product graphs.
Additional Definitions and Tools
In this note, we consider that all graphs are simple and undirected, meaning that they have only undirected edges with no loops and no multiple edges between two fixed vertices. Given a graph of order and a vertex , the open neighbourhood of v is defined to be . Now, we consider the following sets of vertices: , , and .
A set is a dominating set of G if for every . The domination number of G, denoted by , is the minimum cardinality among all dominating sets of G. A dominating set D with is defined as a -set. This classical parameter has been extensively studied. From now on, for a parameter of a graph G, by -set we mean a set of cardinality .
Two of the best-known variants of dominating sets, which they are also related to each other, are the independent sets and the vertex cover sets. A set is an independent set of G if for every . The maximum cardinality among all independent sets of G, denoted by , is the independence number of G. Moreover, a set is a vertex cover set of G if is an independent set of G. The minimum cardinality among all vertex cover sets of G, denoted by , is the vertex cover number of G. In 1959, Gallai established the following well-known relationship.
Theorem 1 ([
13])
. If G is a nontrivial graph, then Finally, we state the following useful tool. For the remainder of the paper, definitions will be introduced whenever a concept is needed.
Proposition 1. Let G be a graph with no isolated vertex. Then, there exists a -function such that .
Proof. Let be a -function such that is maximum among all -functions. Suppose that there exists a vertex . This implies that . Notice that the function , defined by , for every and otherwise, is a -function with , which is a contradiction. Therefore, , which completes the proof. □
2. New Bounds on the Outer-Independent 2-Rainbow Domination Number
Kang et al. [
9] showed that, for any graph
G with no isolated vertex,
The following theorem shows that the bounds given in (
1) have room for improvement, since
and
.
Theorem 2. For any graph G with no isolated vertex, Proof. We first prove the lower bound. Let
be a
-function which satisfies Proposition 1. Hence,
is a vertex cover and
, which implies that
Now, we proceed to prove the upper bound. Let
D be a
-set and
S a
-set. Let
be a function defined as follows.
We claim that g is an OI2RD function on G. If , then we are done. Hence, we assume that . Notice that is an independent set of G because S is a vertex cover set of G. We only need to prove that for every . Let . Since S and D are both dominating sets of G, we deduce that either or and . In both cases, and by definition of g, we obtain that . Thus, g is an OI2RD function on G, as required.
Therefore, , which completes the proof. □
The following result, which is a direct consequence of Theorem 2, the upper bound given in (
1), and the fact that
, provides a necessary condition for the graphs that satisfy the equality
.
Proposition 2. Let G be a graph with no isolated vertex. If , then .
The converse of proposition above does not hold. For instance, the graph
G given in
Figure 1 satisfies
and
.
As a second consequence of Theorem 2 we can derive the next proposition.
Proposition 3. Let G be a graph with no isolated vertex. If is a dominating set of G, then Proof. If is a dominating set of G, then . Therefore, Theorem 2 leads to the equality, which completes the proof. □
The next theorem improves the upper bound given in Theorem 2 for the case where G is a tree.
Theorem 3. For any nontrivial tree T, Proof. Let S be a -set such that . Now, we construct a partition of S as follows. Let and , where represents the distance between w and u. Now, we need to introduce some necessary definitions. Let be the eccentricity of u, and, for any vertex , the is the vertex adjacent to x on the unique path.
Let and , where and and for we define and as follows. For every , define the class such that if and only if Parent = Parent . From to eccentricity , we consider the next cases for every , where we fix .
- (i)
. In this case, we set .
- (ii)
(notice that and ). If , then we set , otherwise we set .
It is clear that
is a partition of
S. By condition (ii) in the construction above, it follows that
and
for every vertex
. With this property in mind and the fact that
is an independent set, it is easy to deduce that the function
f, defined below, is an OI2RD function on
T.
Therefore, , which completes the proof. □
From Theorems 2 and 3, we obtain that for any nontrivial tree
T,
The following result is a direct consequence of the previous inequality chain.
Proposition 4. If T is a tree such that , then 3. The Cases of the Join, Lexicographic, and Corona Product Graphs
In this section, we consider the OI2RD number of three well-known product graphs (join −+, lexicographic −∘, and corona −⊙). If and are any two graphs with no isolated vertex, then
The
join graph is the graph with vertex set
and edge set
. For instance, the graph
G given in
Figure 1 is isomorphic to the join graph
, where
is the empty graph of
r vertices.
The
lexicographic product graph is the graph with vertex set
, and two vertices
are adjacent if and only if
or
and
.
Figure 2 shows the graph
.
The
corona product graph is the graph obtained from
and
, by taking one copy of
and
copies of
and joining by an edge every vertex from the
-copy of
with the
-vertex of
.
Figure 2 shows the graph
.
The following equalities are part of folklore, and these can be found for instance in [
14,
15,
16], respectively.
Theorem 4. If and are two nontrivial graphs, then
- (i)
[
14]
- (ii)
[
15]
- (iii)
[
16]
The following results show that the join, lexicographic, and corona product graphs reach the equality in the lower bound given in Theorem 2.
Theorem 5. If and are two nontrivial graphs, then the following equalities hold.
- (i)
- (ii)
Proof. We first proceed to prove (i). By Theorem 2, it follows that and Theorems 1 and 4-(i) lead to We only need to prove that Let D be a -set. By definition, or . Without loss of generality, we consider that . Let be a function defined as follows:
, and .
and .
Notice that g is an OI2RD function on . Thus, , as required, which completes the proof of (i).
Finally, we proceed to prove (ii). Theorem 2 leads to , and, by Theorems 1 and 4-(ii), it follows that In order to conclude the proof, we only need to prove that For any , will denote the copy of in containing x. Let S be a -set and . By definition, it follows that is a -set. Now, let us define a function on as follows.
, and .
and for every vertex .
Notice that f is an OI2RD function on , which implies that , as required. Therefore, the proof is complete. □
Theorem 6. If and are two graphs with no isolated vertex, then Proof. By Theorem 2 it follows that
, and Theorems 1 and 4-(iii) lead to
We only need to prove that
For any
,
will denote the copy of
in
associated to
x. Let
be a
-set for every
. Now, we consider the function
on
as follows.
Notice that f is an OI2RD function on , which implies that , as required. Therefore, the proof is complete. □